Nietzsche's "Slave Morality" is actually the "good" morality

[ygolo]

This is perhaps a controversial statement, especially to fans of Nietzsche. I claim that Nietzsche actually got it exactly backwards.

Master–slave morality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Nietzsche's view "[...] slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it vilifies its oppressors."

Exactly right!

Outside of a response to either oppression or harm, there is no morality or justice. If everyone were getting all their needs met as they went along with life, there would be no need for morality based reasoning. His "master morality" is not a morality at all.

The rules of society are in place precisely to keep the strong from running roughshod over the weak.

 

[Kephalos]

True. The point is, I think, that it is Nietzsche's position that's supposed to be the controversial one. Or at least it was so, in its time. To be perfectly frank I think that, although many today would reject the specific terminology he used, I don't think many would disagree with the substance of Nietzsche's inversion of Christianity, his Counter- or Anti-Christianity, his Master Morality, once expressed in other, perhaps less flairy terms terms.

Despite the fact that one finds in [Thus Spake] Zarathustra almost innumerable critical allusions to problems and authors belonging to the Western philosophical tradition, the book is nonetheless clearly recognizable as a parody of the Bible (Löwith 1997: 102). Specifically, the many allusions to the life and person of Christ, the fact that Zarathustra speaks in parables addressed to disciples, and many other textual details, mean that, among the numerous books and texts that make up the Biblical canon, it is the the New Testament that is by far the most frequently and constantly referenced here by Nietzsche. Indeed, Nietzsche himself confirms that he intended Zarathustra to be read and received as an "anti-gospel" or "counter-gospel", describing its manuscript version (albeit in ironical tone) as a "fifth gospel" (sic) in a letter addressed to his publisher Schmeitzner in 1883...He also refers to the book, in a note of 1886, as his "Zarathustra-Evangelium" (KSA 12:6[4]).

Ansell-Pearson, Keith, and Paul S. Loeb, eds. Nietzsche's ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. Cambridge University Press.

I come to the war: the supreme manifestation of the new Germany, at last the great test of the gospel of strength, of great daring, of efficiency. But here, alas, the business of the expositor must suddenly cease. The streams of parallel ideas coalesce. Germany becomes Nietzsche; Nietzsche becomes Germany. Turn away from all the fruitless debates over the responsibility of this man or that, the witless straw-splitting over non-essentials. Go back to Zarathustra: "I do not advise you to compromise and make peace, but to conquer. Let your labor be fighting, and your peace victory…What is good? All that increases the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power increases, that resistance is being overcome…Not contentment, but more power! Not peace at any price, but war! Not virtue, but efficiency!…The weak and the botched must perish: that is the first principle of our humanity. And they should be helped to perish!…I am writing for the lords of the earth. You say that a good cause hallows even war?…I tell you that a good war hallows every cause!"

As quoted in: Mencken, Henry L. "The Mailed Fist and Its Prophet." Atlantic Monthly 114 (1914): 598-607. Notice carefully the month and the year this was published: November of 1914. Mencken, Henry Louis. The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. T. Fisher Unwin, 1908. Compare this to the remarks of one local politician in the middle of a crisis in 2021. My point is that, at least on a cultural level, we have been getting closer to Nietzsche, so much so that we don't really notice anymore.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I agree that the choice of words is loaded, but I think he is right. One thing people without that kind of morality will do is hate a person because they are better than them at something. They might claim for instance that such a person "thinks they are better than everyone else" when in fact they have very poor self-esteem because they have been surrounded by people like that their whole lives.

You might think of the "slave morality" as being that of a "sore loser" or "being a poor sport" in a competition. I think that is a better translation of it.

You can extend this concept of a sore loser mentality to wars. Consider the South in the U.S. after the civil war and the fact that a lot of people there still have a hard time getting over it. Or Germany after WWI.

This is perhaps a controversial statement, especially to fans of Nietzsche. I claim that Nietzsche actually got it exactly backwards.

Master–slave morality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Nietzsche's view "[...] slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it vilifies its oppressors."

Exactly right!

Outside of a response to either oppression or harm, there is no morality or justice. If everyone were getting all their needs met as they went along with life, there would be no need for morality based reasoning. His "master morality" is not a morality at all.

The rules of society are in place precisely to keep the strong from running roughshod over the weak.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Nietzsche didn't say that everyone should get their needs met. that is an absolute misconception of his theory. Slave mentality is the mentality of the weak, the mentality of old fashion conservatism and Christianity. In his view a person of true will does not have this mentality but not everyone is a person of true will and only your personal strengths and the will to power can get your needs met. Since, most people are slaves with weak minds (according not Nietzsche not me), most people, by natural selection, will not assert the necessary amount of will needed for getting their needs actually met. Hence, most people, willingly or not are doomed to slave mentality either way.

 

[ygolo]

@Kephalos @Julius_Van_Der_Beak @Fay
Thanks for engaging in the discussion!

I was actually stating that the Christian morality that Nietzsche was calling the "slave" morality is actually the "good" one. But it's not just Christian morality, but the morality of a lot of people who aren't Christian. In fact, the "meek shall inherit the earth" and "servant leadership" resonates with quite a few non-Christians too.

I was speaking more about his writing in Beyond Good and Evil more than Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

I was indeed quoting him and taking the opposite position; this was intentional.

I do think a lot of people do believe Nietzsche and would call his master morality the right type of morality. I actually find this upsetting.

Equating "sore loser" with "oppression" is I suppose one way to steel man his statements, and I am not a philosopher. So I may have interpreted his writing wrong.

Then further, there are questions on:
1. How should we treat the "weak"? The elderly, the children, the disabled, those suffering from trauma, ...
2. Is there such a thing as "social justice" or is all of it just the "politics of envy"?

Even the bible has the story of Cain and Abel. People like Jordan Peterson rail against the "spirit of Cain", which I think is similar to Nietzsche's position.

Life isn't fair, and letting resentment rule your own actions seems dangerous.

But the notion of justice and dismantling structural forms of injustice, like slavery, seems both right and righteous.

 

[Tomb1]

For Nietzsche, all morality is an expression of the will to power. [The will to power is instinctive.] So if "slave morality is a reaction to oppression," then slave morality is based in a desire for justice against the oppressor. Villifying the oppressors was done for the purpose of ultimately wanting to direct others towards the goal of either overthrowing or converting the master. By Nietzsche's time due to historical forces the so-called slave morality had largely prevailed, and "morality based" reasoning of the masses, which would be under Nietzsche's conception just an instinctively inherited will to power, took the assumptions of Christianity for granted

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I don’t think either type is entirely good or absolute. There’s some grey area in “the real world”, so it’s understandable why you might find the idea of master morality troubling.

That said, I personally lean more toward agreement than disagreement with his view. There’s too much of a crab basket mentality at play in the slave morality thinking for my comfort, but I’m likely biased by my own good fortune and upbringing (one could argue I’m falling victim to the slave morality thinking XD)

Interesting discussion, I’ll get back to you on this when I’ve had time to think on it some more

 

[Tomb1]

Personally, the master/slave morality dichotomy rings hollow to me, especially in the context of Capitalism.

For example, somebody who holds as primary values of fame, power and wealth (the master morality) can easily become a slave to the system. Even where they end up with a multi-million dollar a year CEO income still be functioning at a half a million dollar a month overhead which has them running around like a chicken with their head cut off and playing politician to a bunch of stock-holders, and then serving as the company's fall-guy in the event of a cover-up. Because they have to act with so many filters their quality of life is low and character is non-existent even though standard of living is high. So their master values turned them into just another cog in the machine...and it happens all the time.

I'd rather clear 90 grand a year operating a liquor store, and 90 grand is not much today in terms of providing a high standard of living but if it came to that I'd rather barely scrape by but not answer to anyone and live more entirely on my own terms without filters than endure through a jet-setter life but be in everybody else's back pocket. It's good to have ambition in my opinion but money, power, wealth can't be turned into a god; otherwise one will become its slave and grow soft and feeble character-wise.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Personally, the master/slave morality dichotomy rings hollow to me, especially in the context of Capitalism.

For example, somebody who holds as primary values of fame, power and wealth (the master morality) can easily become a slave to the system. Even where they end up with a multi-million dollar a year CEO income still be functioning at a half a million dollar a month overhead which has them running around like a chicken with their head cut off and playing politician to a bunch of stock-holders, and then serving as the company's fall-guy in the event of a cover-up. Because they have to act with so many filters their quality of life is low and character is non-existent even though standard of living is high. So their master values turned them into just another cog in the machine...and it happens all the time.

I'd rather clear 90 grand a year operating a liquor store, and 90 grand is not much today in terms of providing a high standard of living but if it came to that I'd rather barely scrape by but not answer to anyone and live more entirely on my own terms without filters than endure through a jet-setter life but be in everybody else's back pocket. It's good to have ambition in my opinion but money, power, wealth can't be turned into a god; otherwise one will become its slave and grow soft and feeble character-wise.

I don’t think Nietzsche could’ve fully accounted for how globalism and hyper capitalism would affect the world when he wrote that. That’s where writers like Orwell come in. The pigs are masters and yet their survival and happiness is dependent on the very system they administer, making them slaves of a sort, and that’s where we really see the lines of distinction between either form of morality become blurred.

However, I’d agree with you and argue that the liquor store owner in your scenario would be coming much closer to embodiment of Nietzsche’s ideals than a Goldman Sachs executive or a US President could ever hope.

 

[ygolo]

I know philosophers like to spend a lot of time trying to figure out exactly what the philosophers meant when they wrote whatever they wrote. What the context, what they meant, weather or not they as people were right and good, etc.

I think if we mean to gain the best ideas for ourselves, it is better to simply analyze and weigh ideas, all derivatives of previous ones (even if they have no fidelity to the original intent of the author). I am not trying to pass judgment on Nietzsche himself. I just want to understand what the best moral stance is given his ideas and all ideas that resemble or contradict them at this moment.

I do agree with a lot of what is said in this thread. The "tall poppy syndrome" is not something I like either. But there is no denying that the system is rigged now.

There are now financial gurus who advocate fighting inequality as your best way to become financially free in places like the UK and US. The lack of creative-destruction in these economies means there is little in the way of upward mobility. The people in lower socio-economic status are not able to gain access to secure access to shelter, healthcare, higher education, without taking on ridiculous debt and living paycheck-to-paycheck. They aren't able to move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

It is now game-theoretically best for a majority of people to have the nations they live in fall in rank in the world order to get some section of reward rather than continue to support the rigged system just to preserve the nation's rank.

 

[Maou]

The irony is everyone wants to employ master morality, while being slaves.

I think morality is based purely on survival instincts. Right and wrong do not exist, especially in times lost.

 

[ygolo]

I think it is important to adjust one's thinking in light of new arguments or arguments cast in a new light.

Vilifying the oppressors is simplistic, especially when the oppressors themselves are oppressed. An eye for an eye, in this instance, renders everyone blind, vilified, and oppressed.

edit: That doesn't mean that Nietzsche's Master Morality is superior; whether it is Epictetus, Moses, or Frederick Douglass, I think we had more to learn from those who had been enslaved than their masters.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It is meant to be. He's criticizing the "good" morality and exposing flaws within it. The biggest problem with it is the "ascetic ideal" which is renouncing the world. Nietzsche believes it is healthier to embrace the world, which may be right. The problem with the "ascetic ideal" in Nietzsche's view is that people always still yearn for what they've renounced, which creates jealousy and ressentiment. IMO jealousy and ressentiment as a problem because I think this was the soil fascism thrived on; it's always pitting people against those who are perceived to have "more" (which can be evoked in political rhetoric via a charismatic letter) without posing a threat to the current class structure.

I'm not saying Nietzsche is a guy I agree with on every damn thing or is a guiding light of my life. But there's a reason I think he's better than Heidegger. It's obvious when reading modern editions of Nietzsche that he wouldn't have been a guy who enthusiastically joined the Nazi party; a large chunk of his work is him criticizing things the Nazis would popularize.

Nietzsche is an egoist or hyper-individualist, which is not really a strain of thought which can fit into a fascist state (which demands sacrifice on behalf of the nation), even if there are things for which we would criticize it.

 

[The Cat]

There's nothin Nietzsche could'nt teach ya about the raising of the wrist.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In my copy of Nietzsche, in one of the footnotes by translator and editor Walter Kaufman, that Nietzsche did not believe the "master" morality was better. Or, at least, he did not believe it was "correct". Supposedly, he was working on trying to articulate a third form of morality when he died.